* Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > So I'm wondering, is there any strong reason why we couldn't use a double
> > linked
> > list and still do FIFO and remove that silly linear list walking hack?
>
> This will obviously enlarge callback_head, and it is often embedded.
> But this is minor.
>
> If we use a double linked list we can't do task_work_add() lockless.
> So we will need another spinlock_t in task_struct. We can't use pi_lock.
The fact that the O(N) overhead was measured in real apps to be in the
milliseconds IMHO weakens cycle-level concerns about also having a spinlock
next
to the list head. (There's no additional cacheline bouncing concerns with the
spinlock: the head of a LIFO list is essentially a bouncing cacheline.)
If there's some other solution, sure, but LIFO queues tend to be trouble down
the
line.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
